Study puts paid to common myth about GPL

April 24, 2003 — 10.00am

A study of End User License Agreement (EULA) for Microsoft Windows XP and the GNU General Public License (GPL), the most common licence under which Free/Open Source Software is released, has put paid to the common myth that GPL software cannot be included in proprietary software without the entire mix having to necessarily be released under the GPL.

The study also found that the majority of the EULA appears to protect Microsoft while a major portion of the GPL is geared towards apportioning rights to users.

The Microsoft EULA "appears to limit choices, options and actions" taken by users of software covered by that licence. The GPL appears to safeguard the rights of the original developers in order to ensure continued accessibility of the source code for the software, the study found.

The study was carried out by the Melbourne-based firm Cybersource, and authored by its CEO, Con Zymaris.

Advertisement

The Microsoft Windows XP Professional End User License Agreement was selected as representative of the current-generation licence provided by Microsoft for business-grade systems.

The study pointed out that if a developer wanted to create free or open source software which he or she wanted to use in proprietary software without that proprietary software itself coming under the GPL, they could use the Library GPL, which was specifically designed for this purpose.

"Under Linux, many of the libraries are released as LGPL software, which allows non-Open Source software, such as IBM's Sybase SQL Server, Oracle and Lotus Domino etc. to be compiled and linked to these programming libraries. This software then can remain as proprietary, non-Open Source software, even though it directly links to GPL software," the study pointed out, effectively killing the idea that the GPL has some kind of viral properties.

Zymaris said these two licences had been compared as they were the major ones which decision-makers confronted when they were choosing software for enterprises.

"As these two (Microsoft and the Free/Open Source Community) have now become the most prominent purveyors of platforms and software application technology in the computer industry worldwide, we feel it would be instructive for business and organisational users to have a plain-language analysis of these key components of the software they use," he wrote.

The study found that while 45 percent of the EULA was concerned with limiting users' rights, only 27 percent of the GPL concentrated on this aspect. Over half (51 percent) of the GPL focused on extending users' rights while only 15 percent of the EULA was concerned with this aspect. And while 40 percent of the EULA limited remedies, the corresponding figure for the GPL was 22 percent.

"I tried to be as complete and as even-handed in our analysis as possible. It really surprised me that so many people kept holding onto obviously misguided information about both licences, which is why we decided to review and publish these results. Also, since we are not lawyers, we thought we would try and map the contents of the licences into words and meanings that IT and management can understand," Zymaris said.

He said the release of the study had nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft plans a major product release in the US tomorrow AEST. "Actually, I wrote the core of this document six months ago, and have been reviewing it, discussing it with numerous members of the international IT community since then. I'm amazed that no one has done this kind of analysis beforehand. Licences and licensing are becoming the crucial difference between the Microsoft and the Free/Open Source Software camps, so I believe this kind of review, distilling the essence of each, is needed," Zymaris said.

Some features about software covered by the EULA:

copying was prohibited

could be used only on one computer with a maximum of 2 processors

cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver

required registration after 30 days

could stop working if hardware changes were made

updates could change the EULA if the company so wished

could be transferred to another user only once

the new user must agree to the licence terms (no specification how this could be achieved)

imposes limitations on reverse engineering

gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and the its use

gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations

gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask.

warranty for the first 90 days

fixes, updates or patches carry no warranty

Some features found in the GPL:

freedom to copy, modify and redistribute the software

precludes one party from preventing another from having these same freedoms

provides coverage for rights of users to copy, modify and redistribute the software

no warranty as there is no fee

can be sold if the user so decides and services for such software can be charged for

any patents must be licensed for everyone's use or not licensed at all

modified software must carry no licence fees

source code must be provided

if there is a change in license, the general terms of the existing one will be maintained.

Zymaris said he had been helped by Leon Brooks, Conrad Parker, Jacinta Richardson, Richard Keech, Steve White and Tim O'Leary in carrying out the study.